|
|
Post by Aj_June on Apr 4, 2019 15:43:25 GMT
I am not going to write a review. Its greatness can't be stated by a poor reviewer like me. All I have to say is that Buster Keaton is a legend and this movie is a masterpiece. 
|
|
|
|
Post by wmcclain on Apr 4, 2019 15:56:33 GMT
I am reminded of a scene from Bertolucci's The Dreamers. The French cineastes insist Chaplin is greater than Keaton and their American visitor is just boggled at how wrong they are.
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Apr 4, 2019 16:14:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Apr 4, 2019 16:37:00 GMT
I am reminded of a scene from Bertolucci's The Dreamers. The French cineastes insist Chaplin is greater than Keaton and their American visitor is just boggled at how wrong they are. I believe both were incredibly talented and although I personally believe Keaton was more talented on the screen, I see Chaplin as a more complete package (composer etc). Although the same can be argued about Keaton too as he was a stuntman as well. Sadly I have seen most of the major movies of Keaton. But I found quite a few shorts on youtube that I intend to see this weekend.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Apr 4, 2019 17:27:07 GMT
By 1927, Buster Keaton’s movie career as actor, director, and producer was having ups-and-downs, to put it mildly. Often the critical and box office opinions of his films were diametrically opposite. If a film, for example, The General, was a big hit with critics then its revenue would fail to match expenses – which is why Buster signed a contract with MGM. He needed the financial protection of an established studio. But he ran into trouble with management, including Head of Production Irving Thalberg, who wanted to squeeze Buster’s improvisational style into MGM’s straitjacket of formula comedy. His first picture for them was “The Cameraman.” Mostly, he was left alone to make his own film, resisting efforts for more of a plot (producers wanted his character to get mixed up with gangsters). Thalberg pulled the same “taming” technique a few years later when the Marx Brothers signed with him. The Marxes, however, managed better than Buster to work around and through the sometimes insipid and always formulistic stories they were given. This film gives the lie to a couple of Buster Keaton commonplaces: first, the Great Stone Face nickname. Sure, Buster is not an emotive actor, but he can express a lot with his eyes. His face is never “stone.” Second, that Chaplin was the one who gave us pathos while Keaton gave us physical comedy. One viewing of “The Cameraman” should put that cliché to rest. An essential knockabout comedy from the very end of the Silent era.  |
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Apr 4, 2019 19:40:34 GMT
  OT but ….Buster brings to mind ~~ has anyone seen RolloTreadway ? On the Olde Board he was to Keaton what @mikef is to Bogart and wrote terrific essays. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Apr 5, 2019 9:24:54 GMT
By 1927, Buster Keaton’s movie career as actor, director, and producer was having ups-and-downs, to put it mildly. Often the critical and box office opinions of his films were diametrically opposite. If a film, for example, The General, was a big hit with critics then its revenue would fail to match expenses – which is why Buster signed a contract with MGM. He needed the financial protection of an established studio. But he ran into trouble with management, including Head of Production Irving Thalberg, who wanted to squeeze Buster’s improvisational style into MGM’s straitjacket of formula comedy. His first picture for them was “The Cameraman.” Mostly, he was left alone to make his own film, resisting efforts for more of a plot (producers wanted his character to get mixed up with gangsters). Thalberg pulled the same “taming” technique a few years later when the Marx Brothers signed with him. The Marxes, however, managed better than Buster to work around and through the sometimes insipid and always formulistic stories they were given. This film gives the lie to a couple of Buster Keaton commonplaces: first, the Great Stone Face nickname. Sure, Buster is not an emotive actor, but he can express a lot with his eyes. His face is never “stone.” Second, that Chaplin was the one who gave us pathos while Keaton gave us physical comedy. One viewing of “The Cameraman” should put that cliché to rest. An essential knockabout comedy from the very end of the Silent era. RE: Chaplin vs Keaton - In the real world I have seen many people (particularly Americans) being fanatic haters of Chaplin. It has something to do with US governments propaganda against him. One of the ways to demean Chaplin is to compare him with Keaton as an actor and say that Keaton was better. Maybe he was. But Charlie Chaplin's incredible and immeasurable contribution to the film history is almost unprecedented. While Chaplin is still more famous among critics and while Keaton may not get his share of recognition, neither should be demeaned at the expense of the other. Both are legends.
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Apr 6, 2019 13:30:23 GMT
OT but ….Buster brings to mind ~~ has anyone seen RolloTreadway ? On the Olde Board he was to Keaton what @mikef is to Bogart and wrote terrific essays. I love this thread. Funny you should mention Rollo, because I've wondered the same--he was a wonderful, kindly guy who made excellent posts. The Cameraman was the Keaton silent that I became conscious of last, way back in the day when I was forming an interest in his work, because for some reason I had erroneously thought it to be a talkie, possibly because of the MGM connection. It took a friend and fellow Keaton buff to correct my mistake by sitting me down in front of the wonderful Kino video. Although I still put it somewhat lower on the list for Keaton's vintage best, I find it a lot of fun on every viewing. And by the way, am I imagining things, or does Keaton actually briefly break character and laugh as he's climbing up that ladder during the Tong War sequence?
|
|
|
|
Post by wmcclain on Apr 6, 2019 13:40:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Apr 6, 2019 13:44:06 GMT
Harold Lloyd still laughing as he exits the theater following a showing of The Cameraman 
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Apr 6, 2019 20:55:05 GMT
RE: Chaplin vs Keaton - In the real world I have seen many people (particularly Americans) being fanatic haters of Chaplin. It has something to do with US governments propaganda against him.
I think the Chaplin vs Keaton discussions are more about their comedy styles and not politically motivated. Personally, I never cared for the Chaplin character …. he's a little man who is often rude and antagonistic to the BIG GUY until the BIG GUY gets annoyed enough to react and then Chaplin does the whole "LOOK AT THAT BIG GUY PICKING ON ME" routine for sympathy. I liked when he roller skated tho'
Keaton, however, gets into odd everyday situations that are beyond his control and his reaction (or more likely, his lack of reaction) to them is where the humor comes from. I have ALWAYS preferred Keaton to Chaplin and knew nothing about the politics and I would bet that I am not alone in that.
Maybe I have just moved in the wrong circles BUT I have never encountered "fanatic haters of Chaplin" based on politics oe otherwise. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Apr 7, 2019 3:04:35 GMT
I guess when I watch a Chaplin movie I am usually paying attention to social themes such as life in the great depression (Modern Times), voice against hatred (The Great Dictator), unemployment (City Lights), trauma of living an orphan life, etc. etc.. But to each his own. I usually read deeper into characters.
|
|
